This is a thought provoking answer to the question, “Why do people get angry what I try to share the word of God with them?” This theory says it’s actually brainwashing for the person doing it:
(via: Imgur)
What do you think about this? Let us know in the comments below!
So the bible says that there is already a finite list of who will get into heaven. That good works and obedience to the Mosaic law is not enough. That faith without works is empty.
And that pagans who have never heard the word may get in.
So sharing the word with them means they’re off the list. Each pagan you share the word with means possibly one more opening on that list.
Just something to keep in mind when approached.
Soo. The arguement is to specifically expose them so they can’t get into Heaven… so that you have a chance at getting in. Like, not even a for sure thing for you, just casually damn them so you MIGHT get a spot? That strikes me as both selfish and cruel. Of course, maybe that’s the point: with the mindset of damning someone else on purpose, you don’t exactly fit the definition of Grace. So you become a self fulfilling prophecy of not being on the List (because selfish and greedy).
This IS the same religion that used to sell pre-forgiveness for premeditated sins.
People don’t like it when you try to convert them specifically because your religion tells them that they are worthless without your faith. They’re told by your faith that they are powerless sinners who can never be redeemed unless they accept an act of blood sacrifice that allegedly purges their unworthiness, and gives them the power to be decent human beings who are actually worth anything at all. And it tells them that, in order to maintain that state of worthiness, they have to kowtow to a deity that demanded that blood sacrifice, and who claims to have not only engaged in a mass genocide (The Flood), but further states that they fully intend to do so all over again, to everyone who refuses to kowtow to them (The Final Judgement).
NO-ONE accepts being called worthless unless they’re already deeply psychologically wounded; so the only kind of people this teaching reels in are those who are already broken. For everyone else, this teaching is immediately seen to be flat-out psychological abuse, issued by followers of a frankly genocidal deity with a hard-on for blood sacrifice and smiting.
Naturally, the fully sane aren’t attracted to that; and those who are attracted to it typically come because their own brokenness is presented by this faith with a putative solution. That this solution turns them into a slave to a monster doesn’t even enter their minds; in their pain and desperation for a sense of acceptance and healing, they’ll take it. They come for the feels; and the religious community puts out those feels, and reinforces them through the brainwashing technique of ‘witnessing’. And because it’s reinforcing their currently fragile egos, these people don’t even begin to see how twisted and manipulative it all is, or the monster that it’s all in service to.
If this terrible doctrinal spiral attracts you, then you need to start asking yourself why. Why do YOU feel so worthless, so broken, that YOU need this kind of consolation? Why is YOUR sense of self-worth so diminished and fragile, that you feel the only solution to your estate is to seek the comfort of a genocidal deity who proudly claims to have murdered his own son on your behalf? Was it childhood indoctrination perhaps; because that’s sadly common. Or other life events that have beaten you down and degraded your sense of self-worth to a nubbin, maybe.
Because let me tell you something that none of your church buddies are ever going to: you are a worthy human being just for being you. You don’t need a saviour; much less that monstrous, dehumanizing kind of ‘saviour’. You are better than that; no matter what you’ve suffered, or what you’ve done, YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT. I don’t even need to know you to know that YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT. Because every human being is, until and unless they make an irrevocable choice to be otherwise. And those who’ve made that choice… don’t ask the kind of question you’ve just asked. Because they don’t care anymore.
You clearly DO care, because you’ve asked that question. And its most honest answer is this: Whether or not you realize it, this behaviour is dismissive of the life experience and worth of the people towards which you are conducting it. It’s treating them as being worth less than yourself, and demonstrates that you feel no need whatsoever to gain the least sense of their personal worth before reaching the conclusion that, because of your faith, that worth is less than yours. It’s fundamentally dismissive and deeply disrespectful; and no-one enjoys being so thoroughly disrespected or having their life experiences so comprehensively dismissed out-of-hand. So naturally, they don’t treat you as a friend. They treat you as what your behaviour shows you to be: a dangerously deluded enemy, and someone who is unwilling to even try to truly understand them out of some deluded misconception that they ignorantly and foolishly dare to call ‘love’.
Coming to an understanding all of this ultimately leaves you with a choice. You can choose to be a decent human being, and abandon the deity and doctrine that demands you behave in such an abominable manner towards your fellow human beings (not to mention your own personal self-worth). Or, you can continue to circle the drain in the game of Christian self-indoctrination and psychological disintegration, attempting to capture other broken individuals along the way and pull them down into the mire with you.
One of those will leave you open to meeting and gaining true friends; the other will not. I would urge to embrace self-respect and self-worth, and choose the former option.
Spot on!
Why do we reject you at the door… For me it’s because prozelotysing is pushy.. patronising. A lot of people see the hypocrisy of Christianity and how it doesn’t make sense…” Love me or I’ll torture you in the afterlife”
The biggest reason is that science 🧪🔭 has proved to many that god could not have created the world. It’s embarrassing to them to have people with the simpleton mindset asking to be heard when the reason is happy, secure and unworried about such things
You need to get on YouTube and pull up some of the videos on the Gnostic religion. See how certain books of the Bible are not contained in the KJV. Know your Bible History and the why certain books of the Bible were suppressed in the second third century A.D. this happened in the Council of Nicea. That’s something for you to Google and look up. The Bible as it exists today is a little bit, no make that quite a bit designed for male dominance. Mary Magdalene was not the prostitute she’s been made out to be. Otherwise, what kind I say about our savior who had 12 men and a prostitute as his closest confidants.
Regarding dominionism:
A letter the Tribune Star written after July 4th 2016 when the Hobby Lobby had a full page ad in the newspaper about dominionism. In addition to this as you know the Hobby Lobby had decided their employees who were female could not get birth control pills that their insurance through Hobby Lobby for medical care would pay for. They think or believe that birth control is a violation of God’s law. I don’t know where they found that in the Bible because it’s not there. But that’s neither here nor there with the subject of dominionism. Because dominionism is what drove the Federalist society which is neither Federalist nor Society to pack the Supreme Court with justices that would reverse Roe v Wade. That’s exactly what they did and I have a history on the end of this letter as to how we got a federalist Society which is neither Federalist nor Society but a cabal of attorneys paid by dominionists to reverse Roe v Wade when they got to court. In other words they’ve been bribed. Bribed by the 1%, Who control 90% of the financial interests of the United States. Mostly through Wall Street.
This letter reflects my Research into what our founding fathers actually thought about a national religion connected to our constitution.
Dear Editor,
Once again, July the 4th brings a full-page ad supporting dominionism in your newspaper, with the name of “Hobby Lobby” supporting it. I feel compelled to re-visit an old subject that I have
written letters about before.
Question for the reader: What is your definition of “A Christian Nation”?
Certainly the majority of people who founded our nation had religious affiliations that were
Christian. However, I think that America being a “Christian Nation” is stretching things a bit and
it also disenfranchises millions of good, moral people whose religious affiliation (if they have one) is not Christian.
The following text was taken out of context in the ad in question from Thomas Jefferson. It was only partially quoted.
“…God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these
people are to be free. Establish a law for educating the common people. This is the business of
the state and on a general plan…”
Thomas Jefferson as written on panel 3 of the Jefferson Memorial
I would like to state that DNA evidence has proven that Thomas Jefferson had children by one of
his slaves as a widower. Her name was Sally Hemmings The previous quotation is intended to express how Jefferson felt about slavery and public education! Jefferson had children that the society of that time would have shunned him
for claiming. (Look at what rumors of interracial illegitimate children did to John McCain in the
Republican primary of 2000 in South Carolina.) When taken in that context, Thomas Jefferson
was predicting the American Civil War fought over slavery. It must have been a lot easier to see
the hypocrisy in the U.S. Constitution when it came to slavery in the 1700’s than any alleged evil in America in the new millennium, especially when it affected your blood children.
James Madison, 1 of 3 authors of the Federalist papers, says concerning separation of church and state,
“Congress should not establish a
religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any
manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two
combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform” (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 – 731).
In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote,
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”
The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli
— initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams — proclaims:
“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion”
Regarding the Mayflower Compact of 1620, I can only offer a lesson by Benjamin Franklin on tolerance. In the piece penned by Franklin entitled “Toleration in Old and New England”
Benjamin Franklin states,
“…If we look back into history for the character of present sects in
Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of
persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution
in the Roman Church, but practiced it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the
world…”
From the book Enlightening Revolutions by Svetozar Minkov P.230
So should America be a Theocracy? Should we be tolerant? Should we make amendments to the U.S. Constitution mandating religious principles? Should the Supreme Court side with organized religion or maintain a secular attitude? Consider a quotation from Thomas Paine the originator of
the treatise “Common Sense” which lit the fires of the American Revolution. In “The Age of Reason” 1794 – 1796 Thomas Paine writes,
“…I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life…”
Also, concerning government mandated religion by law in his time he writes,
“…All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same
right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be
mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?”
There is a new movement in America. It involves de-constructing American history. It is being
called “Dominionism”. It is loosely defined as a tendency among Christian evangelicals and
fundamentalists that encourages them to not only to be active political participants in civic
society, but also to seek to dominate the political process as part of a mandate from God. Does
this sound strangely similar to ‘Jihad’ to you? Small wonder that politics is so polarized and
nasty these days.
However dangerous you may consider this to be to AMERICA is up to you. Oklahoma, the home
state of Hobby Lobby recently passed legislation that abolished public education. However,
before you decide if you support Dominionism you need to re-read and to consider what Benjamin Franklin teaches us about tolerance. I have shared that teaching with you before. You can decide intelligently if you believe in Civil Liberties and a Secular Society or if you prefer to live in a Theocratic Society like ISIS advocates.
However, if you are still having trouble with these concepts, get a book called “The Family” by
Jeff Sharlet and read it carefully.
Or, we can go with a quote of Thomas Jefferson.
“…Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens,
or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion….”
Thomas Jefferson in “A Bill for
Establishing Religious Freedom,
Section I”
The influence of DOMINIONISM in the so-called “Federalist Society” of today IS OBVIOUS! It is also obvious it is NEITHER FEDERALIST, NOR A SOCIETY!
It’s a cabal of Harvard-trained attorneys whose only purpose was to outlaw abortion for the Dominionist sect of the Republican Party. It began as a club that met in the Harvard Law Library. They took the name Federalist Society as a discussion group to keep the Librarians off their backs in the 1980’s
The six Supreme Court Justices with ties to the Federalist Society and Pushkin Industries are…
1. Samuel Alito
2. Clarence Thomas
3. Brett Kavanaugh
4. John Roberts
5. Neil Gorsuch
6. Amy Coney Barrett
The original Federalist letters were written to newspapers in the 13 colonies under the pen name “Pubulus” the three authors were founding fathers…
1. James Madison
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. John Jay
Why?
Their purpose underwriting the same pin name was too convinced the 13 colonies to ratify the new US Constitution which was better than the Articles of Confederation that the 13 colonies operated under up until that point.
Why is it better?
The US Constitution was written to guarantee equal states rights. It will also defined and operating system where the Constitution could be changed through amendments under certain conditions with votes from federal legislators that were also defined in the Constitution it was written as the framework for our government. It had to be ratified by a majority of the colonies to be placed in effect. If you want you can read them here. But I can save you a lot of time. When Moscow Mitch McCammon and Lard assed Lindsey Graham decided they would appoint Supreme Court judges who were recommended by the so-called Federalist Society instead of the American Bar Association, they set up the six Supreme Court majority that overruled Roe versus Wade and thereby put religion into our legal system. The religion they put in there is called dominionism. Look as much as you want you won’t find anything about abortion in The Federalist Papers written by our founding fathers. I’ve told you what they think of religion. Go back and read it.
Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
Now let me tell you what I think of the so-called Federal Society the federal Society is a product of Malcolm Gladwell who is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries with Jacob Weisberg they are into revisionist history it is sustained by public podcast that are a product of Pushkin Industries.
Who is Pushkin?
Alexander Pushkin was a Russian poet, playright and actor who lived from 5-26-1799 until he was killed in a duel over a woman on 1-29-1837.
In his lifetime he was in over 90 duels and he was shot dead by Frenchman Georges d’Anthès
For more information check out the Podcast …
Takeover: how a conservative student Club captured the Supreme Court (Pushkin Industries)
By Noah Feldman Harvard Law Professor. Deep Background